By 40%, is the pattern more .!.!. or !!... ? Something we often miss is that packet loss really needs to be characterized not just by total drops per unit time, but by drop distribution (e.g., "burstiness"). Alternating drops, for example, may indicate a problem where you are load-sharing over two paths and something is wrong with only one path.
Specifications for SONET, etc. error rates usually involve total errors, errored seconds, and severely errored seconds. In the X.25 world, an error rate of 1 in 10**5 can be insignificant if the errors are a burst every minute or so, but catastrophic if they are evenly distributed and causing an error in almost every frame. At 11:09 AM +0000 6/8/03, Nathan wrote: >Well, the only route my router sees is the directly connected router's >IP. This is due to the fact that we haven't gotten BGP up yet. Also, >from what I know, the serial link is the only link sending out packets. > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Devrim Yener KUCUK >Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 2:15 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: 40% Ping Success [7:70327] > > >please verify where the packets are lost...(which layer...?) > >Like any routing issue..2 packets may be sent from one link and 3 may be >from other.. or physical layer issue (like packet loss... ) cle counters >and check sh int ser ..., sh controller.. which outputs are increasing > >regards > >devvvv > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Nathan" >To: >Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 10:01 AM >Subject: 40% Ping Success [7:70327] > > >> Ok guys here's an interesting issue. Once we got the internet circuit > >> up, the ping was only 40% successful. Why would that be? >> >> Here's the setup: >> >> 3700 -> CSU/DSU -> DMARK -> SBC -> Service Provider. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70341&t=70327 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
